CA4: Error to deny suppression motion without hearing where there’s disputed facts

The district court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress without a hearing when there were disputed facts. United States v. Moore, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 6196 (4th Cir. Mar. 3, 2026).

Defendant consented orally and in writing to search of his cell phone. United States v. Guerrero, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 6231 (6th Cir. Mar. 3, 2026).*

Nexus was shown to defendant’s house from his years-long drug trade. United States v. Johnson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42706 (W.D. Va. Mar. 2, 2026).*

Petitioner actually filed a motion to suppress and litigated it, so he’s Stoned out in this 2254. White v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42778 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Consent, Issue preclusion, Nexus, Suppression hearings. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.